Sonic Impact/ Clari-T users: what amp did it replace?

Adamay · « **on:** 2 Feb 2005, 06:54 pm »

Hi folks. I'm very intrigued with these amps, but would like further comparisons with amps you've all used in the past, and more info about your speakers. I hear lots of folks replacing receivers and mid-fi amps, but not sure many have replaced good tube or SS equipment with the Sonic Impact. Please correct me on this. Also, what's the least efficient speakers that the SI/ Clari-T will handle well without losing bass extension/impact? Mine presently are 92db efficient, full-range -- will I get decent bass down to 35hz? Thanks in advance.

corwin99 · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Feb 2005, 07:16 pm »

In my den it replaced a pair of Radii KT88 Monoblocks... not really high-end, but much more expensive than the Sonic Impact. Mine was not replaced by the Clari-T, but rather a standard model that i modded myself. Speakers are 90db efficient and more than enough for my small 10x10 den.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #2 on:** 2 Feb 2005, 09:27 pm »

Mine is used with my upstairs (very modest) video system. The dialogue and (modest volume) music is sooo clear now. I use simple 2 way bookshelf Boston Acoustics up there...I doubt they are even 87 db efficient.

I don't have the right speakers to give it a whirl on my better 2 channel system right now. Bone stock (with SLA) it was a nice match for my Vandy 1c's (90 db efficient), but I preferred my Maggies and JVC, better.

The little SI will find service somewhere else soon I think....

Panelhead · « **Reply #3 on:** 2 Feb 2005, 10:06 pm »

I am still playing around with two, one in the factory box and another in a metal box with some changes.
My speakers are 100 db efficient and 15 ohm, so the power drain is minimal.
I like the sound better than most of the amps tried, one it beat with my speakers is a Forte 1A. The Forte is richer and warmer, but the top end is rolled off. The two SI amps deliver top notch highs, and the sound goes down in quality as the frequency drops. The bass is only okay, the mids a little better.
The Forte is a much better amp, but must need to deliver more than the mw power levels needed for the speakers. The SI would only be okay when used with average sensitivity speakers.
The sound is great with Lowthers though. Kind of a paradox, 19.95 amp driving 1500.00 drivers. But that is the fun part.
BTW, my Hirega Le Monstre and Mini Aleph sound better than either SI in my system. But the circuit boards are stock in the SI's, there may be gains to be made by swapping the on board cap and the four inductors.

George

tianguis · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 02:06 am »

Adamay:
I've A/B'd it in my system with a GTA 300B, Berning microZOTL and modded Panny XR50, both stock and modified. Mine currently has a new housing, much larger (and better) caps, SLA battery, Discovery Wire signal wiring, Alps pot, binding posts and RCA's.
It beats the pants off the Panny, has better clarity and is "faster" then the Berning and puts the 300B to shame in terms of clarity and speed, also.
Last weekend, I took it to a get-together and used it to drive Reference 3A De Capos (the older, less-efficient ones, about 89 db/w/m). We also listened to the same speaks with an Almarro 633C amp and an AKSA 100w. The AKSA didn't run out of steam at very high (>100) SPL's but the SI seemed to be its equal at normal listening levels, not at all lacking in bass due to the re-cap. The Almarro's warmth hid a lot of detail.
I've used it in my system to drive Hammer Dynamics Super 12's, noRh 4.0's (86 db/w/m) and Lowther ML TL's. It's apart at the moment for upgrades or I'd be listening to it in preference to any of the other amps.

Regards,
Larry Welsh

Adamay · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 04:33 pm »

Thanks very much, folks! One question: SI seems to excel at detail and dynamics, but how is its tone, sense of musicality, harmonic shading, etc, especially in comparison to the tube amps? Your amp comparisons make this little guy seem very, very interesting. Best, A

Paul_Bui · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 05:14 pm »

I'm using the ClariT to drive the behemoth FTA-2000 speakers, and it's interesting you asked about their tone, harmonic shadings, and sense of musicality. I think the little amp excels at the above aspects and have no complaints about dynamics. It's also very speacial at doing detail. I own highly regarded SET monoblocks and similarly impressive transconductance SS amp. Both are of very low powered (between 3w and 10w), purist and minimalist. Yet I still prefer the 6w ClariT in terms of musicality, detail, "wholeness", tone, and lowest harmonic distortion indicated by longest hours without listening fatigue.

tianguis · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 05:40 pm »

Adamay:
Good questions.
As a long-time tube afficionado, I find my modded T-Amp to deliver tone which is neither SS nor "tubey". It is warm without smearing or losing detail. Several tube amps I've compared it to sound very "wooly" in comparison without sounding any warmer. Some good SS amps I've compared it with sound brittle in comparison. Because of its great dynamics, it seems to deliver better shading by seperating individual voices/instruments in complex passages.
This doesn't apply to a stock SI without adequate break-in or SLA battery power. At least several hundred hours are necessary for even a stock one to lose its etched sound. SLA and re-capping take it to a new level. I'm sure the Clari-T is even better.

Regards,
Larry Welsh

Bwanagreg · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 07:26 pm »

I like (and agree with) Larry's description of the Tripath sound relative to tube amps. For me it captures the tube positives of a warm, listeneable balance without the (sometime) negatives of lack of control (wooliness) and other tube nasties like glare and noise.

For reference, I now use a Bolder battery-powered Tripath amp with Omega speakers. My previous tube amps were AMC 2030 (a $600 30 watt EL-34 amp) and a VTL 90 (a $2000 6550-based amp that melted down a few years ago).

Dmason · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Feb 2005, 08:27 pm »

I agree with Larry's assessment. Ultimate listenability. The "warmth" of tubes, but with qualities not found in any other offering. Tube negatives now make tube amps wholly inadequate for my purposes. The second most musical amp I ever owned was an Art Audio Jota PX-25. Pretty good sound. The ClariT is 5% the cost of a new Jota, and I feel it serves the music quite abit better, all round.

I have been going through a round of outstanding singler driver and coaxial type speakers, and this is the way, for me. High quality, single drivers seem to be the best route with these things, no doubt.

The T chips need a loooooong time to get up to where they can be. In fact, because of battery power, I think these are still early days WRT the overal sonic picture. The ClariT recently turned yet another upward corner, and is now like a warm, clear window into the recording, with a touch of burnished brass, like golden afternoon light in the autumn. It is just beautiful sounding.

smargo · « **Reply #10 on:** 4 Feb 2005, 03:11 am »

I have used and owned over the last 7 years - vac renaissance 30/30 push pull triode, conrad jonson mf2500 solid state, cayin tube amp 734a el 34 based, nad 372 solid state, antique sound labs aq1001 kt 88's, jadis orchestra, cary 300b integrated, arcam diva a85, Pass aleph o solid state and im sure im missing a couple of more.

To me the clari t is at least as good as the $6000 vac/30/30 renaissance in its 1998 iteration and the pass aleph o . (I might take heat for that comment) No kidding. It's a modern sound with amazing resolution and clarity and very seductive - you can't look at price with this amp. It's way too cheap to complain about anything it doesn't do. But it's hard going back to anything i've known before.

hope this helps

smargo